Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 203 (PNJ)

Commissioner Of Income-tax v. Charanjit Jawa

2004-02-23

HEMANT GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2004
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short "the Tirbunal"), dated November 28,2002. 2. The assessee is a judicial officer. His claim that he had not been allowed pay scale at the appropriate time to which he was entitled was accepted by the High Court and it was ordered that his pay scale be appropriately fixed and that the consequential arrears be paid to him. The High Court also directed that interest at the rate of 12 per cent. on the arrears from the date of accrual till the date of payment be also allowed. In pursuance thereof, the assessee received arrears of salary along with interest of Rs. 3,41,148. The said amount was treated as income by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1997-98 and added to the taxable income of the assessee. The assessee claimed that the interest allowed by the High Court in its discretion on the arrears of salary did not constitute income and was not liable to tax. This claim has been accepted by the Tribunal by placing reliance on its earlier order in the case of another judicial officer, Sh. B. Rai, whereby relief had been allowed under identical circumstances. The said order of the Tribunal in B. Rais case has already been upheld by this court in CIT v. B. Rai [2003] 264 ITR 617. 3. Since the order of the Tribunal is in conformity with the law laid down by this court in B. Rais case [2003] 264 ITR 617, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal for consideration by this court. 4. There is a delay in filing as well as in refiling the present appeal. Separate applications for condonation of delay have been filed. However, since we are of the view that there is no case on the merits, we are not inclined to issue notice to the assessee merely for considering the case for condonation of delay. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.